United Nations Relief and Works Agency

The Earl of Sandwich: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What response they have made to the latest United Nations Relief and Works Agency appeal for the West Bank and Gaza; and how this compares to the contributions of other European Union member states and the United States.

Baroness Amos: The UK has contributed 2.9 million dollars to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency's (UNRWA) fifth emergency appeal, covering the period 1 January to 30 June 2003. This brings the total UK support for UNRWA's emergency appeals to 35.5 million dollars since December 2000.
	Current contributions from other EC member states and the USA to UNRWA's fifth appeal are:
	
		
			  $ million 
			 Denmark 1.2 
			 Italy 1.1 
			 Sweden 3.3 
			 USA 15.0 
		
	
	Figures as of 30 March 2003

Occupied Territories: Shootings of Britons

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Government of Israel are offering compensation to the next of kin or personal representatives of the unarmed British citizens Thomas Hurndall, who was shot on 12 April near Gaza, and Iain Hook, United Nations employee, who was shot in October 2002 in Jenin; and whether they have received information about comparable cases of United States citizens.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Any offer of compensation by the Israeli Government would be a private issue between them and the families concerned.
	We deal with any consular case on an individual basis, and would not normally speak to US colleagues about comparable cases.

Occupied Territories: Shootings of Britons

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their position on the recent shootings of Britons in the Occupied Territories.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I am deeply shocked that three British nationals have been shot in the Occupied Territories in recent months. Since the shooting of Iain Hook by the Israel defence forces on 22 November 2002, Thomas Hurndall was seriously injured on 11 April and James Miller was killed on 2 May. Our thoughts are with the family and friends of the victims.
	Her Majesty's Government welcome the co-operation the Israeli Government have provided in investigating the death of Mr Hook and hope for similar co-operation into the incidents involving Mr Hurndall and Mr Miller also. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has asked the Israeli Government for full and transparent investigations into these incidents.
	Her Majesty's Government are deeply concerned about the number of incidents in which civilians, both Palestinian and foreign, have been killed or injured as a result of encounters with the Israel defence forces. We have urged the Israeli Government to take steps to revise their tactics in the Occupied Territories in order to reduce the likelihood of such incidents happening again.

Iraq: Prisoners of War

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many Iraqi prisoners of war are now held; how many persons are in long-term detention; and whether it is intended to bring some arrested persons to court.

Lord Bach: As at 15 May, 58 enemy prisoners of war are being administered by United Kingdom forces and held in US theatre internment facilities.
	UK forces are holding some 90 Iraqi citizens who are assessed to pose a threat to security or who are suspected of having committed a criminal offence pending a formal investigation and possible trial under Iraqi law.

Iraq: Looting

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why coalition forces failed to protect the Iraqi National Museum in Baghdad against looting despite the earlier warning given to the United States Defense Department by Professor McGuire Gibson of the University of Chicago in a meeting with officials on 24 January, and to the Prime Minister by officers of the All Party Parliamentary Group in a letter dated 11 February.

Lord Bach: Throughout the military campaign, coalition forces have taken great care to ensure that damage to sites of historic, archaelogical or cultural importance has been minimised. However, at the time of the looting of the Iraqi National Museum in Baghdad, coalition forces were engaged in other higher priority tasks, including warfighting operations and activity to stabilise the security situation throughout Iraq.

Justice and Home Affairs Council

Lord Donoughue: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the outcome of the Justice and Home Affairs Council held on 8 May and what their stance was on the issues discussed, including their voting record.

Lord Filkin: I represented the United Kingdom at the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council in Brussels on 8 May.
	The A points were approved as in document PTS A 21 (8922/03) (a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House). This included adoption of the protocol amending the convention on the use of information technology for customs purposes as regards the creation of a customs files identification database (known as FIDE) which Ministers subsequently signed in the margins of the Council.
	Ministers discussed the directive on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third-country nationals and stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection with a view to resolving the outstanding reservations. However, one member state in particular maintained reservations on the text, including the definition of a refugee and on the rights and benefits to be accorded to those with subsidiary protection status. The presidency reiterated its intention to seek agreement to the directive at the June JHA Council.
	The Council agreed to exclude refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection from the scope of the directive concerning the status of third country nationals who are long-term residents. This followed confirmation by the Commission that it would table by early 2004 a separate proposal for a directive addressing the needs of those groups.
	The presidency summarised progress on the follow-up to the Seville European Council in view of the report to be submitted to the Thessaloniki European Council. The Commission reported on the implementation of the Afghan Returns Programme and the feasibility study on the Visa Information System which would be discussed at the June JHA Council. The Commission also confirmed that a communication on international protection regimes would be prepared in time for that meeting. I urged member states to consider future priorities, asylum (including recent UK ideas); reduction in flows of illegal migrants into the EU; more effective co-operation with source countries on returns; and better financing for JHA external action, including proper integration of JHA needs into other EU programmes.
	The presidency and Commission reported on the negotiations with Switzerland on participation in the Schengen acquis and asylum measures, noting that they would be remitted to the Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER) and then discussed at the General Affairs and External Relations Council.
	The presidency reaffirmed its intention to seek adoption at the June JHA Council of the Council decision authorising signature of the agreements between the EU and USA on extradition and mutual legal assistance, with signature to take place at the EU-US Summit on 25 June. However, it noted that domestic parliamentary scrutiny was ongoing for several member states, including the UK. A number of member states, including the UK, also indicated that they were considering the need to make constitutional statements in accordance with Article 24 TEU. One member state sought further amendments to the Extradition Agreement.
	The Council reached a general approach on the framework decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties. The presidency said that the European Parliament would need to be re-consulted on the text and further discussions were required on the recitals and accompanying certificate. Five member states, including the UK, maintained parliamentary scrutiny reservations.
	The Council agreed the appointment of two Europol deputy directors, including a UK candidate.
	Under any other business, Ministers also took note of the Commission's proposals for a common position on notifying the Council of Europe of the forthcoming application of the framework decision establishing the European arrest warrant between the member states. The Council received an update on recent discussions in the G8 which had reviewed progress made in the fight against terrorism and organised crime. Finally, the Netherlands drew the Council's attention to its contribution to the discussions on judicial co-operation in the Future of Europe Convention.

Home Office Departmental Report 2003

Lord Acton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When the Home Office will publish their annual report for 2002–03.

Lord Filkin: The Home Secretary has today, with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, laid before Parliament the Home Office's departmental report 2002–03 (Cm 5908). Copies are available in the Vote Office, Library and on the Home Office website. The report describes the work of the Home Office to build a safe, just and tolerant society. It sets out our public service agreement targets and describes performance against them. The report explains how we are delivering better public services, sets out how the Home Office is organised to deliver and provides performance information. It provides financial data for the years 1998–99 to 2005–06 and summarises the Home Office's response to PAC reports over the past year.

"Adopter": Definition

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the significance of the difference between the definition of "adopter" in the Statutory Paternity Pay and Statutory Adoption Pay (General) Regulations 2002 (S.I. 2002/2822) and that in the Statutory Paternity Pay and Statutory Adoption Pay (Administration) Regulations 2002 (S.I. 2002/2820).

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: There is no significance in the difference between the definitions in the two regulations. The wording is slightly different but this had no effect in practice.

Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) (No. 2) Order 2002

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why, given that any increases under the Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) (No. 2) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/2927) are only supposed to reflect increases in the index, the proposed increases vary between 1.7 per cent and 4 per cent.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The variations in increases occur because Section 34(3) of the Employment Relations Act 1999 provides that, in making the calculation to apply the relevant percentage increase (or decrease) the Secretary of State shall round up the new sums variously to the nearest 10 pence, £10 or £100.

Patent Office: Electronic Communications

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why the intent specified in paragraph 2(13) of the Patents Act 1977 (Electronic Communications) Order 2002 (S.I. 2003/512) does not also apply in paragraph 2(6).

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Subsections (6) and (13) of Section 124A, which is inserted in the Patents Act 1977 by paragraph 2 of Order S.I. 2003 No. 512, deal with electronic communications respectively incoming to and outgoing from the Patent Office. There are several considerations which require these two classes of communication to be treated differently in this order.
	For communications coming into the Patent Office, it is frequently the case that their time and date of receipt is critical to the establishment and maintenance of patent rights or to the compliance with time-critical requirements of the patents legislation. This justifies a level of technical precision whereby senders can be assured that the Patent Office electronic receiving system has operated satisfactorily, and they gain this assurance if they receive an acknowledgement from that system. The Patent Office intends to provide such acknowledgement, and may wish to rely on it to the extent that a delivery cannot be treated as made if the acknowledgement has not been issued. The purpose of Section 124A(6) is specifically to give legal powers to the Comptroller of the Patent Office to make a future direction which places such importance on the acknowledgement, and will thereby provide a safeguard to senders that Patent Office systems are working to the customary high standard.
	For outgoing electronic communications from the Patent Office the same criteria do not apply. In striving for legal certainty as to whether such outgoing delivery can be deemed to be effected, the view was taken that the obligations on the office must be limited to properly addressing and transmitting the electronic communication. Satisfactory receipt of these outgoing communications depends, among other things, on the functionality of the various electronic systems installed in different users' offices. It may be that users' systems will provide an acknowledgement of receipt to the Patent Office, but the Patent Office should make no assumptions and should not be entitled to rely on it. Section 124A(13) presents this approach as the default situation, but also allows the comptroller to override that default situation by specifying "contrary intention", should that be appropriate. This wording is based upon the established drafting used in Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 in connection with service by post. This "intention" would be applicable only in the context of outgoing communications from the Patent Office and has no application to the provisions for communications coming into it.

Thiomersal

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which organisation set the safety limit for thiomersal laid down in the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/835).

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Decisions regarding the imposition of safety limits, or restrictions to be placed on their use in cosmetics, are taken by member states following opinions given by the European independent Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products intended for Consumers (SCCNFP).
	The Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 2003 revoke and re-enact a number of national regulations which were made to implement amendments to Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the safety of cosmetic products. Thiomersal has not been newly regulated under the 2003 regulations; it has been regulated since 1982. However, I understand that the use of thiomersal in decorative cosmetic products is very limited.

Electricity Meters

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why in the Electricity (Approval of Pattern on Construction and Installation and Certification) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 (S.I. 2002/2139) the sum charged by the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority for meter examiners is under £45 an hour while that for inspectors is £110 an hour.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The Statutory Instrument S.I. 2002/3129 makes provision for the amendment to the Meters (Certification) Regulations 1998 and the Meters (Approval of Pattern or Construction and Manner of Installation) Regulations 1998. These regulations were amended, in part, to facilitate the outsourcing of Ofgem's operational meter testing and examination services to a private contractor.
	For the examination, testing and certification of meters, the £45 hourly rate does not necessarily represent the entirety of the fee that may be incurred. The Meters (Certification) Regulation 1998 provides that the fee payable to the authority for examination testing and certification of meters by a meter examiner (who is a member of the authority's staff) or by a meter examiner instructed by the authority (but not a member of the authority's staff) can include £45 per hour for time spent examining or testing or procuring the testing of a meter; any reasonable expenses (including incidental expenses) in accordance with the provisions of the SI; a sum equal to the costs incurred by the authority (other than the cost of employing the meter examiner, referred to above) attributable to procuring from any person the provision of premises, equipment, or personnel (including a meter examiner) for the purpose of examining or carrying out any test on the meter.
	The fee is intended to cover the administrative costs of an Ofgem meter examiner.

Members' and Peers' Correspondence

Lord Acton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will publish departmental and agency correspondence figures for 2002.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My honourable friend the Member for Paisley South in a Written Ministerial Statement on 15 May (Official Report, col. 18WS) published a report on departments' and agencies' performance in handling Members' and Peers' correspondence during the 2002 calendar year. Details are set out in the attached table. Departmental figures, where possible, are based on substantive replies.
	For the first time, the report includes performance on handling correspondence received from Members of the House of Lords across all departments since 1 June 2002.
	The footnotes to the table provide general background information on how the figures have been compiled.
	
		Correspondence from MPs/Peers to Ministers and Agency Chief Executives(1)
		
			 Department or Agency 2001 Target set for reply (working days) Number of letters received % of replies within target 2002 Target set for reply (working days) Number of letters received % of replies within target 
			 Cabinet Office(2) 15 599 90 15 475 73 
			 Leader of the House of Lords 15 53 80 15 155 96 
			  
			 Crown Prosecution Service(3) 15 97 94 15 366 85 
			  
			 Department for Culture, Media and Sport 18 4,416 90 18 4,767 83 
			  
			 HM Customs and Excise (4) 18 2,452 62 18 1,616 59 
			  
			 Ministry of Defence(4) 15 5,350 85 15 5,381 83 
			 Armed Forces Personnel — — — 15 18 100 
			 Administration Agency  Defence Aviation Repair Agency — — — 10 14 100 
			 Met Office 15 20 80 15 14 100 
			 Veterans Agency 20 279 99 15 265 99 
			  
			 Department for Education and Skills(4) 15 18,237 76 15 15,595 84 
			  
			 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs(5) 15 9,905 34 15 11,241 47 
			  
			 Foreign and Commonwealth Office 20 10,275 79 20 15,535 83 
			 UK Visas 15 8,276 78 15 10,322 98 
			  
			 Department of Health(6) 20 19,665 60 20 17,942 29 
			 NHS Pensions Agency 15 65 98 15 65 95 
			 Medicines Control Agency 10 17 82 15 36 89 
			  
			 Home Office(7)   
			 *Non Prison Service correspondence 15 *16,251 35 15 *26,053 35 
			 **Prison Service correspondence 20 **1,210 78 20 **1,267 86 
			 Criminal Records Bureau(8) — — — 5 632 N/A 
			 HM Prison Service 20 1,272 75 20 942 77 
			 UK Passport Service 10 279 87 10 132 97 
			  
			 Inland Revenue  (4)   
			 *Local Tax Office delegated figures 18 3,356 77 18 3,157 71 
			 (where local tax offices have replied to direct to MPs) 18 382 75 18 *439 80 
			 Valuation Office 23 30 90 18 20 75 
			  
			 Department for International Development(4) 15 1,740 87 15 2,612 96 
			  
			 Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers(2) 15 284 96 15 378 63 
			  
			 Lord Chancellor's Department 20 1,737 74 20 2,577 54 
			 Court Service 15 591 68 20 230 84 
			 *15 593 78 
			 HM Land Registry 20 24 79 20 32 100 
			 Public Records Office 10 11 100 15 166 98 
			 **10 61 98 
			 Public Guardianship Office(9) 15 120 62 15 261 31 
			 *Target for correspondence sent direct to Agency Chief Executive **Target for correspondence sent direct to Agency Chief Executive   
			  
			 Northern Ireland Office 10 358 49 10 501 59 
			 Compensation Agency for NI 7 27 93 — — — 
			 Northern Ireland Prison Service 10 27 78 10 33 91 
			  
			 National Savings and Investments(4) 15 63 62 15 44 66 
			  
			 National Statistics(4)   
			 *Letters where Chief Executive 15 192 77 20 212 82 
			 replied on Minister's behalf. 10 *154 63
			  
			 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister(3) — — — 15 5,523 76 
			 Planning Inspectorate 8 364 94 8 291 90 
			  
			 Privy Council Office 15 237 74 15 488 95 
			  
			 Scotland Office 15 96 75 15 115 73 
			  
			 Department of Trade and Industry (10) 10 9,260 49 10 11,565 41 
			 10   
			 Companies House* 10 50 100 10 45 100 
			 Employment Tribunals Service** 15 12 100 6 46 93 
			 Insolvency Service 10 292 80 10 398 96 
			 Patent Office 10 154 95 10 367 98 
			 Radiocommunication Agency 15 15 100 10 44 89 
			 Small Business Service*** 10 47 96 — — — 
			 *Letters sent direct to Agency Chief Executive. **Target date for letters sent direct to Agency=15 working days. ***Figures included in main DTI return.   
			  
			 Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions(3) 15 14,375 84 15 7,671 83 
			  
			 Department for Transport(3) — — — 15 6,505 84 
			 Driving Standards Agency(3) 15 82 100 15 56 98 
			 DVLA 10 915 98 10 729 99 
			 Highways Agency(3) 15 322 96 15 273 96 
			 Maritime and Coastguard Agency 15 21 95 15 27 100 
			 Vehicle Inspectorate 15 32 94 15 27 100 
			  
			 HM Treasury(3) 15 4,039 78 15 4,647 78 
			  
			 Treasury Solicitor's Department 10 39 100 10 26 100 
			  
			 Wales Office(3) 15 91 63 15 118 97 
			  
			 Department for Work and Pensions 20 12,698 66 20 14,297 65 
			 Appeals Service 15 87 64 15 52 88 
			 Benefits Agency 20 2,529 90 20 504 87 
			 Child Support Agency 20 3,293 58 20 3,194 51 
			 Employment Service 15 520 94 15 72 95 
			 Jobcentre Plus — — — 15 1,103 57 
			 The Pension Service — — — 15 511 71 
			 Disability and Carers Service — — — 15 749 100 
			 Debt Management — — — 15 30 86 
			 Child Benefit Centre — — — 20 20 95 
		
	
	(1) Departments and Agencies who received a total of 10 MPs/Peers letters or less during 2002 are not shown in this table. Holding or interim replies are not included unless otherwise indicated.
	(2) 2002 statistics no longer include interim or holding replies details of which had been included in previous annual reports.
	(3) Includes interim or holding replies.
	(4) Includes all Ministerial correspondence eg letters from MEPs, Members of devolved legislatures etc.
	(5) The performance reflects problems in early part of 2002. DEFRA has taken steps to improve performance. Currently answering 74 per cent. correspondence within targets.
	(6) Poor performance was partly due to problems with a new internal tracking system and problems interfacing with the Agencies. Robust action is now taking place to address these problems including the setting up of a new Customer Service Centre to ensure that problems that occurred in 2002 do not happen again. Also includes figures for the Food Standards Agency as such correspondence is replied to by Department of Health Ministers.
	(7) The large increase in letters received relating to immigration matters has affected the overall performance. Home Office has made the improvement of performance a high priority with more robust systems being put in place to monitor the progress of correspondence and provide early indications of any outstanding or newly emerging problems, this includes the introduction of a new IT tracking system.
	(8) Figures for 2002 are not currently available.
	(9) A major restructuring programme has led to a large backlog of correspondence. There has also been a substantial increase in complaints to Ministers. A major recovery programme was launched to deal with this. 89 per cent. of Ministerial correspondence was answered within target by the end of 2002.
	(10) Due to problems in meeting the 10 working days target, DTI have raised their target for reply from 10 to 15 working days (in line with majority of other government departments) for correspondence received in 2003. Raising the level to 15 working days will help improve performance to a more acceptable level.

Access Radio

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they propose to respond to Professor Anthony Everitt's Report on the Radio Authority's access radio experiments.

Baroness Blackstone: The Government have considered Professor Everitt's report (New Voices: an evaluation of 15 access radio stations) and are minded to bring forward a draft order which would introduce a new tier of access radio stations once the Communications Bill becomes law. Before beginning to draft an order, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will write to the Radio Authority, the Commercial Radio Companies Association and the Community Media Association so that they have an opportunity to express their views at this stage. The Government intend to produce a draft order for formal consultation in the autumn. No decisions have yet been taken on government funding.

Incapacity Benefit

Earl Russell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the breakdown of incapacity benefit by region.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The information is in the table.
	
		Incapacity benefit (IB) beneficiaries as at November 2002 by government office region -- Thousands
		
			 Government Office Region Number of IB beneficiaries 
			 England 1,172.1 
			 North East 110.4 
			 North West 250.5 
			 Yorkshire & Humber 140.0 
			 East Midlands 106.8 
			 West Midlands 143.6 
			 South West 97.4 
			 Eastern 91.9 
			 London 116.7 
			 South East 114.8 
			 Wales 137.5 
			 Scotland 187.1 
			 Overseas 9.1 
			 All 1,505.8 
		
	
	Source:
	The figures are based on a 5 per cent sample of the incapacity benefit computer system and will exclude a small number of clerically held cases.
	Notes:
	1. Figures are expressed in thousands, and rounded to the nearest hundred.
	2. Figures exclude incapacity benefit credits only cases.

Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee

Lord Lea of Crondall: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee has been abolished.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee has never been a standing committee; it was a group convened from time to time under previous administrations to make recommendations to the Chancellor on proposed changes to the construction of the RPI.

General Practitioners: Child Protection

Lord Laming: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the new contract for general practitioners refers to general practitioners' responsibilities for child protection; and, if not, why not.

Baroness Andrews: Yes. The new contract, if accepted by the profession, will require individual healthcare professionals to be able to demonstrate that they comply with the national child protection guidance and, if appropriate, can provide at least one critical event analysis regarding concerns about a child's welfare.

Primary Care Trusts: Commissioning Consortiums

Baroness Masham of Ilton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What happens if a primary care trust declines to join a commissioning consortium as recommended in the recent guidelines on specialised commissioning; and
	Whether the decisions of a commissioning consortium for specialised services will be binding on a primary care trust which declines to join the consortium.

Baroness Andrews: The remit, powers and rules of engagement of collaborative specialised services commissioning groups are agreed by the member primary care trusts and the decisions of these groups are binding on all members. Strategic health authorities performance manage such arrangements and ensure all PCTs belong to an appropriate collaborative commissioning group.
	It is up to the collaborative commissioning group to decide whether to set up service—specific consortia and what form these will take.

Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration

Lord Desai: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When will they respond to the report and recommendations of the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body published today.

Baroness Andrews: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health is responding on behalf of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to the 32nd report of the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration (DDRB) which is published today. Copies of the report are available in the Library. The report covers career grade hospital doctors and dentists (including doctors in public health and the community health service), doctors and dentists in training (excluding general practice registrars) and ophthalmic medical practitioners. The DDRB will report later on general dental practitioners and those in the salaried primary dental care services and is awaiting further developments on the proposed new contract for general medical practitioners. We are grateful to the chairman and members of the review body for their hard work and for the action they have taken to deal with each of their remit groups with the least possible delay.
	The review body has recommended general increases in remuneration of 3.225 per cent for career grade hospital doctors and dentists, and doctors and dentists in training with effect from April 2003. In addition, the DDRB has recommended adjustments to the pay scales for associate specialists and staff grade practitioners.
	The review body's pay recommendations are being accepted in full by the Government and without staging.